What follows below is the second of Alexander Craighead's three publications in
defence of the Covenanted Reformation, and completes the online publication of these writings,
other than the eight pages missing from his Discourse on the Covenants. This statement of
his Reasons of Receding from the present Judicatures of the Church will shed additional
light on his positions and the meaning of some of his expressions in his Discourse Concerning the Covenants.
Primarily however, the reader is referred to the published Renewal of the Covenants for
information about Mr. Craighead's principles and practices while in fellowship with the Reformed Presbyterian
Societies of mid-18th century North America.

What will strike many readers as they consider Mr. Craighead's experience
with the early Judicatories of the PCUSA, is that recorded by Solomon, Eccles. 1.9,
There is no new thing under the sun; for hereby it is evident that it is all of the same errors, lax principles,
and liberal practices which were from the beginning in the PCUSA, which are still to this
day working corruption in that denomination, as well as those which pretend to have separated
from her corruptions, such as the PCA, OPC, and other smaller communities, where our Covenants are despised
and our Confessional Standards made subject to the arbitrary revisions of those who
are not firm in the Truth of Holy Scripture, but given to yield to the influence of
worldly philosophy and political maxims as having priority over the claims of Divine Sovereignty.

Them that mourn in Zion (Isa. 61.3,) will find in Mr. Craighead a dear
friend, who having gone before us, has helpfully pointed out the way of detecting and responding
to these corruptions. He was not deceived by the pretensions of many in his day of
"adopting" the Westminster Confession of Faith as "their confession" while at the same
time making allowances for deviations from the Confession, not only among the membership
of the Church, but even among the ministry. Neither was he carried away with the vain
distinction asserted between "essentials" and "fundamentals" on the one hand, and "non-essential"
points of the Confession on the other, used as the ground for making allowance in the case
of those who would not honestly hold fast the entire Confession of Faith. For, just as it is
in our day, this distinction, (which may be admitted if stated properly and used well in its due context,) was only
used to give license to ministers and church courts to override the authority of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland in its adopting of the several chapters of the Westminster
Confession of Faith to be the Confession of all Presbyterians and all Presbyteries under
her Jurisdiction.

What the reader will find then, is that Mr. Craighead's strictness about
receiving so many ecclesiastical documents of the Reformation as of binding and obliging authority,
(wherein he represents the same concern as the faithful Covenanters of his time,) was not out
of a superstitious or otherwise misguided dedication to Church Authority, but rather out
of sincere conviction of their importance in relation to biblical duty, and a thorough
awareness of the danger of yielding implicit consent to ecclesiastical authority or exercising
implicit faith in the arbitrary and indefinite decisions of church courts. Covenanters
today are not happy to see the Reformed Presbyterian Churches of America and elsewhere following
the same bad example of the early PCUSA in making decisions (official and unofficial) as to
what points of our Confession ministers need not adhere; nor to see some pretending to stricter
principles and a more perfect dedication to the Covenanted Reformation, yet exercising such
tyranny over the consciences of men that they can hardly know what they will be expected
to believe after their uniting in membership. Neither is it evident, how such courses
can lead anywhere but to the same ends to which they led that now thoroughly rotten communion
from which Mr. Craighead separated so many years ago.—But to those who have understanding
of the times (1 Chron. 12.32,) it is no news that the Church of Jesus Christ
is at this day in a lamentable condition, having destroyed herself (Hos. 13.9):—it
is that very thing that has been continuing all along since the overthrow and casting off of the
Reformation. May the Lord hasten his return unto Zion, and the day when he will be pleased
to open the eyes of men, that they may see the distressful state of the Church, and begin to
work for her true and proper restoration. This was the prayer of Mr. Craighead long ago, as may
be inferred from what follows. It is a prayer which will not go unanswered. But there is a day
appointed, and a measure of iniquity which must first be filled up. (Prov. 7.20; Gen. 15.16.)

2009.03.28.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

The

Preface

to the

Reader.

Chriſtian READER,

I SUPPOSED it to be neceſſary for
thy better Information, and to prevent
thy being impoſed upon by the Wiles and
Policy of Enemies to a covenanted Reformation,
that I should give thee a
View of thoſe Things which were the
Ground of my Reaſons, that ſo by a right Peruſal of
these Things you may come to understand whether the
Ground is sufficient to build the Reasons upon or not:
They are as followeth: Year 1729, To convince the
Reader that we govern ourselves according to the Principles
here asserted and pleaded for, we annex a Copy
of the Synod's Agreement in the Point debated:

Although
the Synod do not claim, or pretend to any
Authority of imposing our Faith upon other Men's
Consciences; but do profess our just Dissatisfaction
with, and Abhorrence of such Impositions; and utterly
disclaim all legislative Power and Authority in
the Church, being willing to receive one another as
{iv}
Christ received us to the Glory of God; and to admit
to Fellowship, in sacred Ordinances, all such as
we have Grounds to believe Christ will at last admit
into the Kingdom of Heaven: Yet we are undoubtedly
obliged to take care that the Faith once delivered to
the Saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and
so handed down to Posterity; and do therefore agree,
that all the Ministers of this Synod, or that shall
hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare
their Agreement in, and Approbation of the Confession
of Faith, with the larger and shorter Catechisms
of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster; as being,
in all the essential and necessary Articles, good
Forms of sound Words and Systems of Christian
Doctrine; and do also adopt the said Confession and
Catechisms as the Confession of our Faith. And
we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries, within
our Bounds, shall always take care not to admit any
Candidate of the Ministry unto the Exercise of the
sacred Function but who declares his Agreement in
Opinion with all the essential and necessary Articles
of said Confession, either by subscribing the said
Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
Declaration of his Assent thereto, as such Minister
or Candidate shall think best. And in case any Minister
of this Synod, or any Candidate of the Ministry,
shall have any Scruple with respect to any Article or
Articles of the said Confession, he shall, at the time
of his making said Declaration, declare his Scruples
to the Presbytery or Synod; who shall notwithstanding
admit him to the Exercise of the Ministry within
our Bounds, and to ministerial Communion, if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge his Scruples or Mistake
to be only about Articles not essential and necessary
in Doctrine, Worship or Government. But if
the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such Ministers or
Candidates erroneous in essential or necessary Articles
{v}
of Faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them
uncapable of Communion with them. And the Synod
do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or
use any opprobrious Terms of those that differ from
us in those extra-essential and not necessary Points;
but treat them with the same Friendship, Kindness
and brother Love as if they had not differed from
us in such Sentiments.

Another of the Synodical Acts is dated 1734.

That we are a particular Church, and not to be
a Part of any particular Church in the World with
which we are united by the joint Exercise of Church-Government,
and are not accountable to the judicial
Enquiry of any superior, ecclesiastical Judicatures
upon Earth; Therefore if we do not exert the Authority
inherent in us, maintaining the Purity of
Gospel-Truth, it's not in the Power of any superior
ecclesiastical Judicature authoritatively to call us in
Question for our Neglect, or for our Errors or Heresies,
if we should be corrupted with them.

Again, an Act or kind of an Answer to a Supplication
brought into the Synod, when it was erected after
the Division of the Synod, August 1741.

A Paper being brought in from several Subscribers,
desiring us to do sundry Things chiefly relating to the
solemn League and Covenant, for the Reformation of
the Church, as they suppose, the Synod are of the
Mind, that they are not called to any other Measure
or Methods for carrying on a true Reformation and
promoting real Godliness than they already plainly
aim and endeavour after, they hope they are sincerely
and, in some Degree, faithfully labouring to promote
and establish the Purity of Doctrine, Worship, Discipline
and Government and Power of Godliness;
and therefore they desire and affectionately advise
that the People subscribing said Paper be cautious and
moderate in what they are about, and so much the
{vi}
more as they think they have Ground to suspect that
some ill-designing Persons are craftily and secretly
unsuspected by some of them encouraging their Procedure
for no good End.

These Acts, with a Letter, which goes under Mr.
Gilbert Tennent's Name, together with the Way and
Manner that Church Government and Discipline are
managed, is the Foundation of my Reasons.

I understand that some Ministers and People assert,
that this Act of 1729 is repealed and dissanulled; and
all Ground they have for the same is an Act of
Synod, made June 17. 1736, by which they say it is
done away: Which Act is as followeth.

An Overture of the Committee, upon the Supplication
of the People of Paxton and Derry was brought
in, and is as followeth, That the Synod do declare
that inasmuch as we understand that many Persons
of our Persuasion both more lately and formerly have
been offended with some Expressions or Distinction in
the first or preliminary Act of our Synod, contained
in the printed Paper relating to our receiving or adopting
the Westminster Confession and Catechisms,
&c. that in order to remove said Offence, and all
Jealousies that have arisen or may arise in any of
our People's Minds on Occasion of said Distinctions
and Expressions, the Synod doth declare, That the
Synod have adopted, and still do adhere to the Westminster
Confession, Catechisms and Directory, without
the least Variation or Alteration, and without
any Regard to said Distinctions. And we do further
declare, That this was our Meaning and true
Intent in our first adopting of said Confession, as may
particularly appear by our Adopting Act: Which is
as followeth, All the Ministers of this Synod, now
present (which were 18 in Number) except one that
declared himself not prepared, after proposing all the
Scruples any of them had to make against any Articles
{vii}
and Expressions in the Confession of Faith and larger
and shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at
Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the Solution
of those Scruples, and in declaring the said Confession
and Catechisms to be the Confession of their
Faith, except only some Clauses in the 20th and 23d
Chapters; concerning which Clauses the Synod do
unanimously delcare, that they do not receive those
Articles in any such Sense as to suppose the civil Magistrate
hath a controuling Power over Synods with
respect to the Exercise of their ministerial Authorities,
or Power to persecute any for their Religion, or
in any Sense contrary to the Protestant Succession to
the Throne of Great Britain And we hope and desire
that this our synodical Declaration and Explication
may satisfy all our People as to our firm Attachment
to our good old received Doctrines contained
in said Confession, without the least Variation or
Alteration; and that they will lay aside their Jealousies
that have been entertained through Occasion
of the above hinted Expressions and Declarations as
groundless. This Overture was approved nemine
contradicente.

Seeing I have mentioned this Act before, I come to
prove that the Act 1729 is not repealed by this Act, I
shall hint at a few Things in it: And first, I seem to
be at a Loss to understand what those Expressions in it
are apply'd to, viz. 'Without the least Alteration or
Variation.' If those Words are to be applied unto the
Act of 29, then they are just a Confirmation of it,
and discovers that the Synod was not resolved in the
least to vary from it; which is not improbable, Liberty
to come and go in Religion, it being so fashionable and
so very agreeable to corrupt Nature: But if the said
Words be applied unto the Confession of Faith, Catechisms
and Directory composed by the Westminster
Assembly, viz. that the Synod did not in the least
{viii}
Measure deviate from them, it is notoriously false, as
is plain by the Exception they make themselves of Something
in the Articles of the Confession in this very Act.
It's plain also, that the Synod deviates from some of
the Directory, in neglecting, according to it to oblige
Persons, before their Ordination, to take the Covenants,
national and solemn League, and in many other Things.
Secondly, Some Things appear very strange in the Exception
at the Close of the Act: First, That the
civil Magistrate hath not a controuling Power over
Synods in the Exercise of their Office. I readily grant
it to be so, if Synods be in the right Exercise of their
Office; but if they transgress, by violating of God's
Holy Law, misusing their Office, it is not so; for in
such a Case the civil Magistrate has a controuling
Power, as is plain from the Example of King Josiah
2 Kings 23.4, and from the very Design of Magistrates,
which is to be a Terror to Evil-Doers, and a
Praise to such as do well.

Secondly, That the civil Magistrate has not Power
to persecute any for their Religion. Certainly he has
Power to punish Persons for entertaining erroneous
Principles,[1] as well as wicked Actions, let them term
them Religion or not; otherwise he cannot be termed a
nursing Father to the Church. It's true that no Magistrate
has just Power to punish or persecute any for
maintaining any Principles agreeable to the Divine
Law, this being the Reverse of the Design of them.

Thirdly, I suppose that the infallible Direction
of Magistrates in the Execution of Justice is the
Word of God, and not the Protestant Succession to the
Throne.

I come now to prove that the synodical Act of 1729
is not yet repealed with relation to receiving of the
Confession of Faith by any synodical Act; which is
undenyable from those Particulars in this Act of the
Synod, by which it is said the Act of 29 is repealed:
{ix}
First, That this Act speaks of the Act 29 is clear from
their terming it the first or preliminary Act contained
in the printed Paper relating to their receiving the
Confession of Faith; out of which Paper I took those
Things which I observed in my two first Reasons. Secondly,
That this Act nowise repeals the Act of 29 is
evident from the Synod's own express Words in this
Act, which are these, 'We hope and desire that this
our synodical Declaration and Explication, &c.'

This must either be an Explication of something or
of nothing: An Explication of nothing is an Absurdity:
If it is an Explication of Something, it either must be
of the Act of 29, or of something else: If it be of
something else, it cannot be a Repealing of the Act of
29: Or if it be an Explication of the Act of 29, it
cannot be a Repealing of it; for the Design of an Explication
is to set the Thing in a clearer Light than it
was before; but the Design of Repealing an Act is, the
Dissanulling of it, destroying of it, taking away the Power
or Obligation of it. So that it is evident that the Act
of 29, relating to the Synod's reciving or adopting the
Confession of Faith, is nowise repealed nor abridged by
any synodical Act to this Day, but stands in as full
Force as ever. From the Whole of this Act, and that of
29, I cannot find that either or both of them bind the
Adherers to them so firmly unto the Confession of Faith,
Catechisms and Directory, composed by the Assembly of
Divines at Westminster, as the formula did bind the
Adherers to it: which formula, or adopting Act, was
composed by the indulged Ministers in the Reign of
King William, for receiving the Curates into ministerial
Communion with them; which Act many of the
Curates complied with.

There is one Thing that I would warn the Reader
of, which I spoke of in my Reasons, viz. That in no other
Method or Manner ever was or is the Confession received,
either synodically or presbyterially, than agreeable
unto the Act of 29: That the Reasons were written
{x}
some time before the Presbytery sat, at the Time that I
declined to join any longer; as also, I never did, nor
do not yet suppose that for Ministers, either in Synod or
Presbytery, just saying, without any more to do, that
they adopt or receive the Westminster Confession of
Faith, Catechisms and Directory, as the Confession of
their Faith, to be an actual receiving of it as their
own; when there is no Promises nor Obligations taken,
binding them that takes it to maintain and promote the
Principles therein contained against all Opposers of
them, and in Doctrine and Practice to conform to that
which they own: For without this, or something equivalent
to it, I look upon it as a mere empty Compliment
for Ministers only to say they adopt or receive the Confession,
&c. It looks indeed, altho’ they own the Westminster
Confession, as if they had no just Right to it,
as the very Word adopt properly signifies.

Again, It is asserted, that the Reasons which were
taken from those synodical Acts of 29 and 34 are not
to be regarded as any Reasons for receding from the
Presbytery of New-Castle, of which I was a Member:
Because these Acts were made before some of them were
Ministers, and they are now a separate Body, and so
they have no Concern with these Acts. All that I shall
say in Defence of this, is only to desire the Reader impartially
to compare the Act of our Synod, after it was
separated from the other, and the Act of New-Castle
Presbytery, when I receded from it, with those two
former synodical Acts, together with the Explication
of them all, and consider if there is not so much of an
Agreement between them as gives me sufficient Ground
to mention the Act of 29 and of 34, so as to found
some of my Reasons of receding upon them.

Again, It's said that Mr. Gilbert Tennent's Letter
was no just Ground of a Reason for receding from
the Presbytery, he being no Member of it. To this I
answer, my Design was not nor is not only to recede
{xi}
from the Presbytery only, but also from the Synod, as
plainly appears from my Reasons; so that I look upon
the Reasons of the one to be sufficient for the other,
they being a conjunct Body.

I come now to consider of the Minutes of the Presbytery,
at the Time when I gave in my Reasons of receding
from it: Which is as followeth.

Mr. Creaghead having given his Reasons for
Withdrawing from Communion, and having proposed,
as Terms of his continuing in Union with us, that we
should explicitly declare our Adherrence to every Article
in the 33 Chapters of the Westminster Confession
of Faith, with the larger and shorter Catechisms,
as the Articles of our Faith; that we declare our
Adherrence to the Westminster Directory, and the
Sum of saving Knowledge; that we own and acknowledge
the national and solemn League and Covenants,
as a Tie binding upon us, as materially and
formally considered unto the Whole of the Presbyterian
Religion, &c. that we testify against the Defection
in King Charles the Second's Reign; against the
prelatical Government in the Church; against all
synodical or presbyterial Acts, against or inconsistent
with the whole Confession of Faith, or any Part
thereof, &c. The Presbytery considering, that altho’
they have already declared their receiving the Westminster
Confession of Faith as the Confession of their
Faith, without Exception of any Part of it, as by
our Minutes will appear; yet seeing it is not thought
sufficient by Mr. Creaghead, that he may have no
colourable Ground of Justice for separating from us
upon that Head, and that Unity and Peace might be
preserved amongst us, which we earnestly desire;
the Presbytery declares as follows, viz. That we, and
every one of us, do unfeignedly, as in the Sight of
GOD, take and receive the Whole of the Westminster
Confession of Faith, with the larger and shorter
{xii}
Catechisms, as the Confession of our Faith, believing
all the Articles in them as the Truths of God's Word,
in the plain and obvious Meaning of the Words
whereby they are express'd in said Confession and
Catechisms; yet so as the latter Clause of the third
Article of the 23d Chapter shall not be so interpreted
as if the civil Magistrate had a Power of a negative
Voice over Synods in their ecclesiastical Transactions,
or had, as a civil Magistrate, any ecclesiastical
Authority in them. The Presbytery also declares,
that they adhere to the Plan laid down in the Westminster
Directory for Government and Discipline,
as the Plan established by Jesus Christ, the alone
King and Head of the Church: And we heartily
believe the Sum of saving Knowledge as a brief Sum
of the Christian Doctrine contained in Holy Scripture.
As to the Covenants, we agree to the Whole
of our Declaration made presbyterially at Middle-Octarara,
April 14. 1742, which is as follows,
Upon the Address presented by Part of the People of
Middle-Octarara, and some others, concerning the
solemn League and Covenant, desiring the Presbytery's
Judgment concerning the Obligation and Bindingness
of these Covenants upon them the Posterity of the
Covenanters desiring the Presbytery's Judgment of
this Matter, as their Commissioners declared for
their own Light and Satisfaction about it: The
Presbytery, after a long Discourse upon the solemn
League and Covenant, which contains and comprehends
the Substance of the national Covenant in it,
concluded as follows, namely, that Religion which
was established and so solemnly engaged to by the said
Covenant in all the Branches of it, both as to Doctrine
and the Plan for Government, Worship and
Discipline in the Church, is the true Religion contained
in and taught by the Word of God; and that
all Things condemned and rejected in the said Covenant
{xiii}
are Errors contrary to the Word of God, and consequently
the said true Religion, contained in that Covenant,
is still obligatory and binding upon all People
and Persons where the Light of the Gospel comes by
the Authority of God's Word. The Presbytery further
declares, that their entering into the solemn
League and Covenant, by the Body and Strength of
the Three Kingdoms of Britain and Ireland, was a
hopeful and promising Expedient for the Establishment
and Preservation of the same true Religion of Jesus
Christ in them; and the Breaking of the said Covenant
afterwards, with that Establishment of a
prelatical or episcopal Church-Government, contrary
to it, and that furious Persecution and shedding of
the Blood of the Saints that ensued upon it, were
very crying and awful, aggravated Sins before God;
for which we have still Reason to fear the awful
Stroaks of his righteous Judgments: Yet the Presbytery
freely owns and declares there may be Protestants
of other Denominations, besides the Presbyterians,
sincerely, godly, true Believers in Christ, and dear
to him; and we doubt not there are many such, notwithstanding
they believe and maintain some Things,
through human Imperfection in this present State,
which are erroneous, who therefore ought not to be
looked upon as Heathen Men and Publicans, but loved
as the Children of God and Members of the Body
of Christ, seeing they are sound in the main Essentials
of Religion, and afford hopeful Evidences of
sincere Piety. Finally, the Presbytery judge it may
be very needful for Ministers, upon proper Occasions,
to give Warning to their People of the great Danger
that those Kingdoms which we are related to, and
ourselves with them, stand in of the severe Judgments
of God, on the Account of the aforesaid Scene
of Perfidy, Cruelty and Opposition to the Interest of
Christ's Kingdom. And we likewise freely and
{xiv}
openly declare and testify against that dreadful Apostacy
under the Reign of King Charles the Second,
and the Oath of Supremacy, and all other sinful Bonds
and Oaths then imposed. We likewise declare against
all prelatical and episcopal Government in the Church;
all human Rites and Ceremonies in Worship; and
against all synodical and presbyterial Acts contrary to
the Confession or Directory.

I shall make some Remarks upon this Minute: And
First, remark what is said by Way of Rehearsing the
Terms of my Re-union with them, differs much from
the Terms themselves, as the impartial Reader may
easily perceive; to whose Consideration I leave it.
Second Remark, That the Presbytery has complied
in any Measure but with a few of the Terms proposed,
as, perhaps, may further appear. Third remark,
That the Presbytery asserts they had received the Confession
of Faith, without Exception of any Part of it;
I readily own, that it is common for Ministers to say
in Presbyteries or Synods, that they adopt or receive the
Confession of Faith as their own in Cumulo, without
making any particular Exception against any Part of
it; yet I cannot look upon this as a right Receiving of
the Confession of Faith; for these Reasons, First, Because
all such Declarations, I suppose, have a Reference
to that sinful Act of [17]29, it not being yet particularly
repealed, and it being formed as a Rule or
Direction whereby the Confession should be received,
and there being nothing else, since the Formation of that
dreadful Act, for directing Persons how to receive the
Confession of Faith. 2. Because I look upon such verbal
Declarations as a very insipid and luke-warm
Manner of receiving such a very valuable Book entirely
unbecoming the Importance of the Thing. 3. I cannot
see what good End such Declarations are for, without
any solemn Promise or Obligation to conform unto what
they receive in Doctrine, Government, Discipline and
{xv}
Practice. 4. Because several Ministers, that have
declared so, do preach, pray, argue, act in Government,
Discipline and Practice the Reverse of what they pretend
to receive.

Fourth Remark is, That the Presbytery [makes my]
Dissatisfaction the Ground of this Procedure of theirs;
so that if they extended any further in this Act than
usual, it is owing to their Compassion upon me; but did
not flow from a true Sense of the Necessity of those
Things in their own Nature, or from their Sense of
the low, mournful and doleful State of this Branch of
the Church of Christ in these Parts; which indeed I
am affraid that this is the naked Truth of the Matter,
until the eternal God brings a Soul to see the distressed
State of his Church, how it lies like a ruinous Heap.
Altho’ he should freely own every Word contained in
that valuable Book termed the Westminster Confession
of Faith, it would all be but in a great Measure in
vain; for it could not be otherwise but the Heart and
Practice contradicting the Profession.

Fifth Remark is, The Presbytery acknowledges the
Directory to be the Plan for Government, and to be
established by Jesus Christ; and yet does not oblige Candidates,
before their Ordination, to take the Covenants,
as the Directory expressly requires. It is really exceeding
wonderful, yea, amazing to me, how Persons that
truly fears God dare, for their Souls, wilfully neglect
such a material Injunction in the Directory, which they
assert is established by Jesus Christ, while the Thing
required is actually in their Power to perform. A
parallel Example of this is difficult to find an Instance
of the like in the Book of God of his own Children:
If this Practice does not contradict the Profession I
leave the unprejudiced and understanding Reader to
judge. Oh! does not this appear too much like an industrious
and wilful Blinding of the Eyes of the poor
Populous? pretending to receive the whole Directory,
{xvi}
and not excepting against one Sylable contained in it,
and yet avowedly neglecting this and several other
Things therein. Oh, Christian Reader! consider that
it is by such Pretences, Wiles and Stratagems that the
Church of God has been betrayed ever since the doleful
Breach of our Holy Covenants: And, alas for it! we
that are in the Room of Teachers have had the chief
Hand in leading poor Souls astray; and indeed I cannot
clear myself of the Charge, for which I would desire
to mourn before God and the World, Night and
Day.

Sixth Remark: The Question asked in the Supplication
was, whether the Covenants were binding upon us
or not? But not one Word of a direct Answer is given
to the Question proposed, altho’ it is a very importunate
Question in this degenerate Age, and altho’ almost one
Word might have fully done it; yet this could not be obtained,
but instead of it a mere Evasion or a waving the
Question, as is plain, to a Demonstration, from the
very Minute itself.

Seventh Remark: It is true Religion which is contained
in the Covenants that the Presbytery asserts to
be still obligatory, and not the Covenants themselves.
Again, this true Religion is obligatory by the Authority
of God's Word; but not by the Covenants, which was
not the Question proposed; for none, as I know of, question
this, viz. that the true Religion contained in the
Covenants is binding by the Authority of God's Word.
Again, neither was the Question, If the Religion contained
in the Covenants be the true Religion or not?
For many of us have no Doubts or Hesitation whether
it be the true Religion or not; for we are convinced in
our Consciences, by the Spirit of God, speaking in his
Word, that it is the true Religion. Again, neither
was the Question properly about Religion at all abstractly
considered; nor about one kind or another of Religion.
Again, neither was the Question whether the true
{xvii}
Religion be binding upon all in a special Manner. This
is certainly so; but none of all these Things were ever
in the Question, but entirely foreign from the Question.
But the Question was, whether the Covenants are
binding upon us, Yea or Nay. Oh! Christian Reader,
here you may clearly see (if Prejudice has not blinded
your Eyes) what needless Shifts and strange kind of
Turns is taken to avoid only one of two Words, either
Yea or Nay. Does not this plainly discover the Badness
of the Cause? For if those Covenants are binding,
might not the Presbytery have said they were so? A
better Answer we should not have desired. And if
they looked upon them not to be so, this would have been
a clear Answer. My dear Reader, for the Lord God's
Sake, and for thine own Soul's Sake, what is all this
but a mere Quibbling in the Affair.

Again, altho’ there is not a direct Answer given to
the Question; yet, I imagine, one may justly be gathered
from that which was given in the Room of one, viz.
That the Presbytery does not look upon the Covenants
as binding upon us. This is plain, from their asserting
that the true Religion is still obligatory by the Authority
of God's Word wherever the Gospel comes. This intimates,
that this true Religion is nowise binding upon
us by the Covenants; because this Obligation by the
Word of God to this true Religion extends equally unto
all Nations where the Gospel comes; for it cannot have
more Authority in one Nation than another, it having
[still] the Authority of the same unchangeable God. Now
it is altogether impossible that these Covenants should be
binding upon one Soul that is not of the Posterity or
Nation of the Covenanters, until the Person binds himself;
so the real Thing is, if they are not binding on
other Nations than the covenanting Nations, they are
not upon them either; for there is the same Equality
of Reason, according to this Minute here, for the one
as the other. They assert that they own the Covenants
{xviii}
materially, but not formally. This is a philosophical
Distinction whereby many poor People are beguiled: To
own the Covenants to be materially binding, is to own
that those Things which are contained in them are
binding. To disown them to be formally binding, is
properly to deny them to be binding at all as Covenants.
Two Things are essential to all kind of Writings which
are valuable, viz. Matter and Form, and take away
either of these and you destroy the Writing; so take
away the Form of the Covenants, then they cease to be
Covenants; and for Instance, take away the Form of a
Note or Bond and it is no more a Note or Bond. You
may alter the Form of a Note or Bond many Ways, and
they remain to be either good or bad, according as they
are altered either for the Better or the Worse.

Eighth Remark. It appears to be no small Wonder
to me how the Presbytery can assert that these Covenants
were not only materially good, but also were promising
and hopeful Expedients for the establishing of
vital Godliness, when they were composed, and the
Matter of them still good and binding by the Word of
God; but not as they are Covenants. Now it's imagined
that there is no need of these Covenants now.
What can be the Reason that we don't need them now as
well as ever? Is it because we have no need of that
true Religion which was and is established by them? or
rather that our Hearts and Minds are so alienated
from God that we hate and abhor such a strict, true
and undefiled Religion as it is? or is the Religion become
worse? or have Persons, by being bound to it by
solemn Vows, learned it so well as rightly to perform it
with a loose Foot that they can come and go in it at
their Pleasure? or is it because we have complied with
Prelacy? which, by the Word of God and those Covenants,
is condemned; the Prevalency of which was one
of the greatest Motives to excite our worthy Ancestors
to compose them, that thereby this dreadful Error might
{xix}
be rooted out. But some may say, wherein have we complied
with abjured Prelacy? In supporting the Professors
of it and Compliers with it; in submitting and swearing
Allegiance unto the Promoters and Upholders of it, and
in not bearing a publick Testimony against it as an Usurpation
of Christ's Royal Prerogatives. Again, the
Form of the Covenants is asserted by the Presbytery to
be once good; and sure there is no Change or Alteration
in the Form of them? and what has taken away their
good Form? or has the Mutation or Change of Government
done it? It's true that the Alteration of
Government was the Cause of their Violation and Burning
of them; yet those that escaped the Flames remain
the same that they were. Again, it seems strange
how all Things in or Matter of these Covenants should
be binding by the Word of God, and yet not binding in
themselves: This must be because Covenants are not of
a binding Nature, or because these are not so; or because
altho’ they have been binding in their own Nature,
yet they have lost their Obligation. 1. That
Covenants are of a binding Nature, is unquestionable,
the very Notion of a Covenant proves it; for what is
a Covenant but a Contract or Agreement by which each
Party covenanting obliges themselves to the Performance
of whatsoever is contained in the Covenant? Both Scripture
and Reason proves this; nay, it's impossible to be a
Covenant and not to be binding in its own Nature. 2. I
know it's granted that these Covenants were binding
upon them that entered into them. 3. I suppose it
will be allowed, that the Covenants are still of a binding
Nature in themselves, otherwise they must cease
to be. But all the Question lies in this, Whether
they are binding upon us? To which I answer: If
they are not binding upon us they are not our Covenants;
for if they were they could not cease to bind us,
they being of a binding Nature; and if so, we may
justly disown them altogether, and cast them away or
burn them.
{xx}

Ninth Remark is, That the Presbytery asserts that
we have still Reason to fear the awful Strokes of God's
righteous Judgment, for the Violation of these Covenants
and other Evils which accompanied the same. If
we have still Reason to fear the Stroke of Justice for
the Breach of those Covenants and other Evils which
accompanied it, then either we are some way guilty of
this Breach and the other Evils, or the Holy Ghost must
be charged with Injustice, which is terrible Impiety,
or this Part of the Minute is false: And if we are
guilty of the Breach of the Covenants, it must be by
their being binding upon us; for if they are not binding
as Covenants, it's impossible we should, by spotless Justice,
be charged with the Breach of them as Covenants;
and thus this Part of the Minute appears entirely to clash
and contradict the former Part of it, the one Part intimating
that the Covenants are binding, the other
Part that they are not.

Tenth Remark. The Presbytery puts themselves to
a needless Trouble in asserting that there are Persons of
other Denominations besides Presbyterians, which are
godly; for this is not doubted but there is such.

Eleventh Remark. The Presbytery appears to give
Toleration to Errors, by asserting, that erroneous Persons
should not be looked upon as Heathens, or the like.
How this agrees with those Scriptures, I leave the judicious
and unprejudiced Reader to judge. Titus 3.10.
A Man that is an Heretick, after the first and
second Admonition, reject. Matt. 18. Latter
Part of the 17th Verse. But if he neglect to hear the
Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man
and a Publican. 1 Cor. 5. Latter Part of the 6th
Verse. Know ye not that a little Leaven leaveneth
the whole Lump?

Twelfth Remark is, That the Presbytery asserts
that those erroneous Persons should be looked upon as
the Members of the Body of Christ, is strange; for by
{xxi}
the Body of Christ here is undoubtedly intended his visible
Church. Now that any erroneous Person, while
he upholds his Errors, should be looked upon as a Member
of Christ's visible Church, is diametrically opposite
to the fore-cited Scriptures, Confession of Faith, Catechisms,
Directory, Covenants, and many other Scriptures.
It is certain that Persons may be the Children
of God, and yet justly cast out of Christ's visible Church,
and be looked upon as no Members thereof, until they
repent and return from their evil Course, as is plain
from the Instance of David in his Murder and Adultery,
And Peter in denying of his Lord, and many others;
and the Neglecting of Church-Discipline towards such
as are supposed to be godly, has been a dreadful Ruin
to the Church.[2]

Thirteenth Remark. The Presbytery opens the Door
of the Church in this Minute unto the usual Extent of
it, since the Covenants were laid aside, viz. unto all
such as own the main Essentials of Religion, and this
is the very same with the Act of 1729. Now this, and
the like of it, has brought the Church of God to a very
low and dangerous Condition. 1. Because the Door
of the Church by this is opened so wide that it excludes
very few. 2. Because never no Church has determined
what these main Essentials in Religion are, whether
many or few Particulars, so that these being undetermined
they are judged agreeable to the Inclination of the
People which judge of them, which is a very slippery
Foundation to build a Church upon.

Fourteenth Remark. The Presbytery esteems it to be
very needful for Ministers to warn their People of the
great Danger the whole Realm stands in of the Judgments
of God on the Account of the foresaid Evils,
viz. the Breach of the Covenants, &c. How this
corresponds and agrees with the common Practice of
Ministers, let the impartial Reader consider if it is not
the Reverse of it.
{xxii}

Fifteenth Remark. Altho’ the Presbytery declares
against several Steps of Defection; yet, from the Scope of
this Minute, how evidently do they discover the little
Knowledge that they have of the mournful and distressed
Condition of the Church in these Parts.

Now, Christian READER, I have told Thee the
Ground of my Reasons; and, perhaps, thee and I shall
never meet ’til we meet at the Bar of Christ, and
therefore, in his Name, I advise thee impartially to
consider what is written with an Eye to thy Good, and
the Benefit of the Church of Christ; lest this small
Piece rise in Judgment against thee as an Evidence
that thou hatest Instruction. Farewell.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

♦♦♦♦♦♦♥♥:♥♦♥:♥♥♦♦♦♦♦♦

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

TheREASONSof Mr.Alexander Creaghead’s declining
to join with the Judicatories of
the Church in these Parts, according
to the preſent Situation
of them;

To be laid before the Preſbytery of New-Caſtle,
to ſit at Whiteclay-Creek the 3d Wedneſ-
day of Sept. 1742.

INTRODUCTION.

Reverend Fathers, and Dear Brethren,

IT is with exceeding great Concern to
me, that I find myself constrained,
either to withdraw from your Meetings
until there be a better Regulation
of this Part of GOD's Church, or
trample my Conscience under my
Feet. The Eternal GOD is my Witness, that the
former is more grievous unto me, than I know well
how to express; for both your Sermons and your
private Conversation, have been many Times very
{24}
refreshing unto me: But the latter I dare not do
upon any Account; when expecially, as far as I can
find, in this respect, my Conscience is directed by
the Spirit of God, speaking in his Word.

Again, It is really grievous unto me, that I am
obliged to open up, in any Measure, the Nakedness
of the Church of God in these Parts, and how open
it lies unto the Enemies of God: Yet when I consider,
until the ruinous Heaps in Zion be discovered,
that even the Sons and Daughters thereof can easily
pass them by, without any Lamentation; but when
they are once observed, it cannot be so. And altho’
these few Lines may appear to have less Tendency
for this End, than the Sounding of the Rams-Horns
had to the Overthrowing the Walls of Jericho;
yet, who knows what God will do with them?

Again, Some may take Liberty to say, that I
am very fickle, and want to promote Divisions, and
forsake the Presbyterian Religion, and the like:
May GOD forgive such Persons, as I hope I shall
freely do. I suppose my Fickleness in Principles,
cannot yet be discerned, and much less proved. It
has been, for many Years past, and still is my Principle,
and steadfast Resolution, to walk as agreeable
as I can, in Doctrine, Practice, Government and
Discipline, unto the holy Word of God, and to
every Part contained in the Confession of Faith
composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster;
and I should esteem it as a very great Mercy, and
a rich Privilege, to have the Opportunity to wait
on Presbyteries and Synods which were guided by
the Directory for Government of the Church.
{25}

My REASONS for declining,

are ſuch as theſe:

First: Because I suppose that the Confession of
Faith, which was composed by the Rev. Assembly
of Divines at Westminster, was never as yet received
in this Province, either presbyterially or synodically,
as the Confession of our Faith in every Article thereof
even, to speak of no more at present; but the
33 Articles therein contained at self, which have
not all been received: As may perhaps appear from
the following Particulars.

(1) You will find no presbyterial or synodical Agreement
in this Province before the Year 1729, to
receive or adopt the Confession of Faith at all; and
few Years before this, scarcely almost any thing
spoken of it.

(2) When in the above-mentioned Year there
was a synodical Act for some End of receiving the
Confession of Faith, yet then all the 33 Articles
at self were not all received; as is undeniably evident
by the synodical Act for the same, of which
Words are these:

And do therefore agree, that
all the Ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter
be admitted into this Synod, shall declare
their Agreement in, and Approbation of the Confession
of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter
Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster,
as being in all the essential and necessary
Articles, good Form of sound Words and Systems
of Christian Doctrine; and do also adopt the said
Confession and Catechisms as the Confession of
our Faith.

Here is a Part of that Act; I shall
have Occasion to mention more of it. By this it's
evident, that all the Articles in the Confession were
not received by this Act, but only those that were
{26}
Essential and Necessary; which discovers that they
then looked upon some of them not to be so, and
thence not to be received. These Articles are not
particularized whether they are many or few, whether
some or all, but left to the different Sentiments
of Persons, to add or diminish: And, for my Part,
I can see no Reason why any Quaker, Papist, or
what they will, may not receive the Confession
upon the same Terms; for I see no Bounds set to
marr any of them.

(3) That the Westminster-Confession of Faith
was not, nor is not received in this Province as the
Confession of our Faith by any presbyterial or
synodical Act, is further plain, by another Part of
the same synodical Act above spoken of, which
is as follows:—

And in case any Minister of the
Synod, or any Candidate of the Ministry, shall
have any Scruple with respect to any Article or
Articles of the said Confession, he shall in the
Time of his making said Declaration, declare
his Scruples to the Synod or Presbytery, who
shall notwithstanding admit him to the Exercise
of the Ministry within our Bounds, and to ministerial
Communion, if the Synod or Presbytery
shall judge his Scruples or Mistake to be only
about Articles not Essential and Necessary in
Doctrine, Worship and Government.

Here
you may observe, that Scruples may be at any Article
or Articles in the Westminster Confession of
Faith: And if the Presbytery or Synod judges the
Scruples or Mistake to be only about Articles not
Essential and Necessary, then it is to be concluded
so, altho’ the Scruples be about any Article or Articles
in the Confession of Faith; yet it's all one,
if the Presbytery or Synod judges them not to be
essential or necessary, they must infallibly be so,
without any Peradventure, and then the Synod or
{27}
Presbytery is made Judge, what our Confession is to
be; and we have no more ado, according to this
Act, but look what the Acts be either of a Presbytery
or Synod, and there you may find our Confession of
Faith; and if the Presbytery or Synod be sound in
Faith, your Confession will be the better: But
tho’ ever so erroneous, if it goes under the Name
of a Presbytery or Synod, yet their Act must be
your Confession. Thus you may perceive, that the
Westminster Confession was not received by that Act,
but the Acts of the Presbyteries and Synods received
in its room, and it most basely vilified, as tho’ there
were Articles in it neither essential nor necessary in
Doctrine, Worship, or Government. And Oh!
what a dreadful and abominable Slur is cast upon
such an excellent Assembly? How can a more intolerable
Act be formed than this, by any that has
the Shape of a Man?

(4) That the Westminster Confession of Faith was
not entirely received by this Act, is further evident,
because only the Articles and Catechisms are mentioned
in it, and not a Word of the Directory for
Worship and Government, the Sum of Saving
Knowledge, nor the Covenants. And indeed it's
little Wonder; for there has been not only very
small Use made of any of those Things, but also
many Things in them denied and ridiculed most
awfully, as if they were ridiculous, altho’ they were
all at least approved and received by the same venerable
Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as a Part
of Uniformity in Religion; as is evident by the
Acts of Assembly in the same Year in which the
Confession was received, and afterwards the Covenants
were frequently renewed.[3]

Second Reason of my receding from the present
Ecclesiastical Judicatures of this Church, as they are
{28}
now constituted, is, Because the aforesaid abominable
Act is still the very Ground and Foundation
of the Church in these Parts, it being the very
Terms upon which it is pretended that the Westminster
Confession of Faith was and is still synodically
and presbyterially received; and in no other
Way, Method or Manner was ever the Westminster
Confession yet received, either synodically or presbyterially,
neither is there any other Method prescribed
for receiving the Westminster Confession
presbyterially or synodically in this Province, but
by the aforesaid Act; it being the very consituting
Act of the Church in these Parts; as is evident from
the very Act itself, some of which has been mentioned,
and is as follows, "And do therefore agree,
that all the Ministers of this Synod, or that shall
hereafter be admitted into this Synod, &c."
This is further evident from the Adopting Act, or
Formula, which Formula, or Adopting Act, is undeniably
taken out of, and founded upon the aforesaid
pernicious Act, altho’ a little more polished;
yet by comparing that sinful Act of 1729, with the
Adopting Act or Formula, you will find them, as to
the Substance, the very same Thing.

Third Reason of my receding or withdrawing
from the present Judicatures of this Church, as they
are now constituted, is, Because of another corrupt
synodical Act, made in the Year 1734, yet unrepeal’d,
which is as follows,

We are a particular
Church, and not to be a Part of any particular
Church in the World with which we are united
by the Joint-Exercise of Church-Government,
and are not accountable to the judicial Enquiry
of any superior Ecclesiastical Judicatures upon
Earth; therefore if we do not exert the Authority
inherent in us, maintaining the Purity of
{29}
Gospel-Truths, it's not in the Power of any
superior Ecclesiastical Judicatures, authoritatively
to call us in Question for our Neglect, or for our
Errors or Heresies, if we should be corrupted
with them.

There appears to me, in this Act,
several strange Things: First, how our coming over
the Sea should dis-join our Union with that Church
which we and our Fathers were born in, and many
of us baptized in that Faith, and some liv’d a great
Part of our Lives there? I cannot perceive, if this
Act be true, but we have renounced our baptismal
Vows in some Measure; for then and there we were
received as a Part of Christ's visible Church in our
native Land: And if Baptism be a receiving of a
Child or an adult Person as a Member of Christ's
visible Church in that Place, which none will deny
that owns the Sacrament; then, unless in extraordinary
Cases, it is at least a Bordering upon it. Secondly,
There is here a manifest Denying of our
being a Part of any Church on Earth, and thus a
Denying of our being any Part of the Church of
Scotland. It's true this Church is not particulariz'd,
but it's certain that we did never pretend to be a
Branch of any other Church; which makes it plain
that this Church in particular is intended by the Act,
and thus this Act is an evident Disowning of the
Westminster Confession, entirely, in all the Parts of it.
If this Act and the aforesaid Act be true, it would
appear to me, to be what has been long alleged by
many People, that we have formed a new Confession
of Faith: For if we are nowise united to the Church,
as is peremptorily asserted, how is it possible that we
can be of one Faith with it? Can any one Thing
on Earth be one with another Thing without any
kind of Union? Again, when a Part of one Thing
is taken away to another Thing, surely that Part
which was taken away and joined to another Thing,
{30}
it may still justly be termed a Part of that Thing
from which it was taken away; for if otherwise,
that Part which was taken away, must be annihilated,
or cease to be, by its being remov'd; which is
absurd to imagine. And thus our very Persons, at
least, by the Permission of God, are removed from
our native Land hither, and we have pretended to
bring the Principles there with us; and now, when
both ourselves and our pretended Principles came
from thence, it seems wonderful how in the mean
time we are, or can be said to be no Part of that
Church. But for my Part, I look upon this Part of
the Act as notoriously false. Thirdly, In this Act
wonderful Pride is discovered, but one Step below
the awful Arrogancy of the Pope of Rome; he arrogates
a Power over all civil and ecclesiastical Authority;
the Synod are beyond all ecclesiastical
only. Again, by this Act there appears to be a
real Encroachment upon the Royal Prerogatives of
the Son of God, who alone has all the Power and
Authority of his Church inherent in himself; neither
ever had the best Synod or Presbytery on Earth,
nor ever shall have, any Power or Authority over
any Part of God's Inheritence inherent in them;
No, no; the Power is in Christ alone; he alone is
Lord over his Church: The Power or Authority
that any Synod or Presbytery has, is derived from
Christ; he is the Spring and Fountain, they are
only the Instruments, appointed by him for exercising
of it, at his Command and Will. And thus
you may see what a notorious, bold, presumptuous
Act this is, bewraying the most dreadful Pride:
These are a few of our synodical Acts, whereby
you may rationally consider, of what Sort the rest
must be, and what a lamentable State this Branch
of the Church of God is in.
{31}

Fourth Reason why I cannot in Conscience join
with our present Judicatures, according to their
Constitution now, is, Because, altho’ there was a
Supplication from many private Persons the last
Year at our Synod, to know our Minds in respect
to the Westminster Confession in the several Parts of
it, altho’ every Part of it were not particularized,
yet this was the Design of the Supplication; but all
the Answer which was obtained, was to this Purpose,
To wit, That they supposed they were not
called unto any other Measure or Methods for the
carrying on a true Reformation, and promoting of
real Godliness, than they already plainly aim at,
and endeavour after, &c.

This Answer I look upon as worse than none:
1. Because it contains no Answer unto any one Particular
in the Supplication. 2. Because all the Reformation
in Principles that ever was in this Province
synodically or presbyterially, is agreeable unto
the aforesaid Acts of Synod; and the World may
judge what Sort of a Reformation in Principles the
said Acts have established in these Parts, and I
suppose it will be difficult to produce one synodical
or presbyterial Act, since these were composed, for
the Reformation of this Branch of the Church in
Principles, but is agreeable unto these pernicious
Acts. 3. Because by this Answer one of two
Things seems to be evident, either that the Synod
imagines that where there is a Degeneracy in Principles,
that in order for a true Reformation there is
no Necessity to be reformed in them, or that they
are not sensible that this Branch of the Church of
Christ is degenerated in Principles; and if either of
these Things be so, I look upon it as very melancholy:
For the 1st, I hope that there is no Professor
of Christianity will be so absurd as to maintain it:
And for the 2d, That this Branch of the Church
{32}
of Christ is degenerated in Principles, will manifestly
appear unto any unbiased Person, whether the Synod
is sensible of it or not, from two Things, 1st, If we
will consider the Apostacy of the Generality of the
whole Nation in the Reign of King Charles the Second,
when the whole Work of the Reformation
was overturned; the Covenants burnt by the Hand
of the Hangman; Presbyterianism dethroned, and
Prelacy enacted by a Law in the Room of it; the
Presbyterian Ministers turned out of their Places,
fined and punished even unto Death, and Prelates
violently thrust into their Room against the Minds
of the People; dreadful Oaths imposed upon Presbyterians,
such as that of Supremacy, of Abjuration,
and the like; all which the Generality of Ministers
and People took; and such as did not, were persecuted
for it according unto the Will and Opportunity
of their Enemies.[4] And now ever since this
time, even unto this Day, there never has been a
general Acknowledgment, by Persons professing to
be Presbyterians, of this grievous Apostacy, nor
ever a general Testimony given against it as an Evidence
of our turning from it; neither was there
ever a particular Acknowledgment of these awful
Steps of Back-sliding from our Principles; nor a
Testimony bore against them by this Branch of the
Church of Christ unto this Day: So that it appears
evident, even to a Demonstration, that we in this
Age and in these Parts (as well as many other Parts)
are treading in the very same Steps and holding on
in the very same Course (or rather worse) of Apostacy,
Back-sliding and Defection from the Principles
that those Ministers and People did tread in who
complied with all the Defections in the Reign of
King Charles II. which Defection almost the Universality
of the Nation tacitly approves of it, to wit,
by their Silence in this Affair, and many among us
{33}
pretending to be Presbyterians, avowedly vindicates
Ministers and People complying with that dreadful
Apostacy: The Words of our dearest Lord Jesus
are very applicable unto these Things, and confirming
of them, which are mentioned Luke 11.47, to
the End of the 51st Verse, Wo unto you: For ye build
the Sepulchres of the Prophets, and your Fathers killed
them. Truly ye bear Witness that ye allow the Deeds
of your Fathers: For they indeed killed them, and ye
build their Sepulchres. Therefore also said the Wisdom
of God, I will send them Prophets and Apostles,
and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That
the Blood of all the Prophets, which was shed from the
Foundation of the World, may be required of this Generation;
From the Blood of Abel unto the Blood of
Zacharias, which perished between the Altar and the
Temple: Verily I say unto you, it shall be required of
this Generation. Secondly, The two synodical Acts
above spoken of, clearly prove that this Branch of
the Church is awfully degenerated from the Principles
of true Presbyterians, both of them being opposite
thereunto, as is evident from what has been
said of them, and which to this Day stand unrepealed
as an undeniable Proof of our Apostacy in
Principles.

Fifth Reason of my receding from the present Judicatures,
is, because I imagine that neither the
Government nor Discipline of the Church is rightly
managed by us: I shall give Instances of these; and
first, I think we were blame-worthy in Government,
when we were thrust out by a Part of the
Synod, and erected ourselves under the Name of a
Synod, that we did not then begin to consider something
of our Principles, and consider of some Plan
that we would adhere to in the Government of the
Church, especially as we were excited to it by
{34}
several People, as was hinted, and as it has been
the commendable Practice of the best reformed
Churches, and particularly it was the Practice of
the Godly Erskines, and their Companions, who
were in much of the same State with ourselves, they
soon came to consider the State of the Church.
Secondly, This Year I think we were entirely to
blame, because altho’ we had appointed a synodical
Meeting, we trifled away our Time, doing nothing
until the Generality of People were quite wearied
out, and several Ministers also, and obliged after
all to go as we came, without any Benefit to the
Church; and indeed it is lamentable to consider
how poorly the Times for such Judicatures are frequently
spent. Thirdly, It is too evident that there
is little or no Church-Discipline exercised towards
Mr. Rowland, for all his Irregularities. And,
Fourthly, When it was told that one of our Presbytery
had said, that whosoever swore unto the Directory
he or they were perjured, yet this must be
buried and brought to no Trial, altho’ sponsible Evidences
were offered to prove the same: And when
one was blamed for not attending several of our
Presbyteries and Appointments, the Presbytery knows
whether if there was any Censure, whether it was
proportionable to the Fault or not. By such Means
we are Instruments of causing Sin to lie on one another,
and are Partakers of one another's sins,
and terrible Perverters of God's Institutions in
such Cases.

Sixth Reason of my receding from the Judicatures
in these Parts, is, Because hitherto there is no such
Thing has been obtained as to get either Synod or
Presbytery plainly to tell judicially what Part or
Parts contained in the Westminster Confession they
do own and maintain, or what Part or Parts
{35}
thereof they disown and deny. It is true indeed
that there are several particular Ministers that give
dreadful Hints of their Mind concerning the Confession:
Some intimating, that they don't know but
it would have been as good for the Church if it had
never been composed: Others terming it Bigotry
to promote and maintain the same: Others term
these that would vindicate the Confession Idolizers
of it, and that they [themselves] value it no more than other
Books of human Composure; and yet all these
Persons pretending to own the Confession as the
Confession of their Faith; so that for my Part I
cannot but admire what Principles we are generally
of, or whether we have almost any.

Seventh Reason of my receding from the Judicatures
in these Parts, is, Because the Generality of
Ministers among us, do not only not acknowledge
some Part of the Directory and Covenants formally,
but also in Words deny Part of the Directory
and our Obligation to the Covenants considered as
Covenants; and by this Means, at least in Effect,
they deny, and endeavour to overthrow the whole
covenanted Reformation; the establishing of which
has cost many of our Forefathers their Lives.

Eighth Reason of my receding from the present
Judicatures of this Part of the Church, flows from
a Letter, which goes under Mr. Gilbert Tennent's
Name, published lately in the News-Papers; in
which Letter and Postscript many Things might be
observed, some of which I shall hint at. In the
Letter, first, he expresses his Grief for the Division
or Separation that was in the Synod, in very extensive
Words, ‘I would to God the Breach were healed;
my Soul is sick of these Things.’ It's true
indeed that neither Division, Separation or Quarrelling
{36}
among Ministers, especially in themselves, are
desireable at all, yet according as the Circumstance
of Affairs was, Mr. Tennent I suppose himself did
once praise God for the Separation, and many others
did, and do, and I hope will thro’ Eternity praise
the holy Name of God for it. 2dly, He says, ‘It's
a Shame that Ministers, who are in the Main of
sound Principles of Religion, should be divided
and quarrelling.’ It's true it is a Shame, but we
should inquire where it lies; whether at their Door
or at ours? But at once to join with all that are
of sound Principles in the Main, this I think would
open the Door of the Church too wide, viz. To all
pretended Presbyterians, to all Independents, to
Churchmen and Anabaptists. Now to put a Stop
to this Division and Quarrelling, a Question might
be proposed, to wit, Whether we should turn unto
all those, or they unto us? or whether every Party
should comply a little? If the first of these should
be, to wit, That we should turn with them all;
God alone knows what kind of a Church there
would be! And if the 2d, to wit, That all would
turn unto all the Principles of the Presbyterian Religion;
our Souls would rejoice therein. If the 3d,
to wit, That every one should yield something; I
doubt [suspect] the Division would be wider, and the Quarrelling
more, by such a Proposal. In the Postscript,
1st, the Author tells us, ‘The late Method of
setting up separate Meetings, upon the supposed
Unregeneracy of Pastors of Places, is enthusiastical,
proud and schismatical.’ This is manifestly
against all the separate Societies and Congregations
which have been erected, or might have been, in the
Land; for the Terms are indefinite, without any
Limitation or Restriction to any one Place or more.
What can a Person have more of another, but a
Supposition that he is unregenerated? We cannot
{37}
infallibly know, that he which robbs in the Highway,
is unregenerated; because there is no Sin so
great (the Sin against the Holy Ghost alone excepted)
but a regenerate Person may fall into it: This and
the like wicked Actions are a just Ground to suppose
that the Acter of these Things is Unregenerate:
And so when an experienced Christian has frequent
Opportunities either of a Minister or another Person
in religious Discourse, Prayer or Preaching, and
can find nothing but Carnality, Formality or a legal
Strain, no Relish of internal Piety, he has just
Ground to suppose that he is unregenerated: 2 Tim.
3.5, Having a Form of Godliness, but denying the
Power thereof: From such turn away. Indeed for
one to turn away from another without any just
Ground, but merely a groundless Supposition, is
irrational: But certainly there are many Ministers
and People which have had all of the aforesaid
Reasons and many more for their Supposing
that those which they have turned from are Unregenerate:
And hence it appears, that the
Charge is unjust, and the Terms vile. 2dly, The
Practice of openly exposing Ministers, &c. if Ministers
gives Ground to suppose that they are unconverted,
they ought to be opposed publickly as well
as privately, it being a Part of the ministerial Function
to warn People of false Teachers: Titus 1.13,
Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound
in the Faith. The Apostle seems not to be of our
Author's Opinion, to wit: That the Rebuking of
Ministers publickly only tended to provoke them;
but that it is a Means of God's Appointment to
bring them to be sound in the Faith. And in Order
to bring People to understand who we mean by false
Teachers, we should inform them that it is all erroneous
Teachers, all scandalous and immoral Teachers,
and all legal Teachers, who teaches to do,
{38}
and little or nothing of the Gospel, or not making
a Distinction between the Law and the Gospel, and
all carnal Teachers that do not, will not or cannot
open up, in some Measure, clearly and distinctly,
the Nature of experimental Godliness, the Way and
Method of the Holy Spirit's Operation on the Soul
of Man, in Beginning and Carrying on of this great
Work of Regeneration, while the Soul is in Time.
This is so far from lording it over our Brethren that
I don't see how we can be faithful to God and the
Souls of Men without this, unless we had Ground to
believe that there are none but faithful Ministers at
all; which certainly is not our State. 3dly, As to
sending unlearned Men into the Ministry, even altho’
they are pious, ought not to be vindicated: But
certainly let them have what Learning they can
have, according to the Word of God, if they are
not truly gracious, they ought not to be admitted
into the Ministry, because while they are unholy it
is impossible for them to be qualified for the Work
of the Ministry: 1 Tim. 4.12. But be thou an Example
of the Believers, in Word, in Conversation, in
Charity, in Spirit, in Faith, in Purity. Surely no
graceless Creature on Earth can come to this? For
if he has true Love to God, the Spirit of Christ in
him, justifying Faith and Purity of Nature, he cannot
be graceless; and if he has not these, he cannot
be an Example of Believers in them. 4thly, That
which is said concerning the Abhoring of all immediate
Inspiration or following immediate Impulses of
the Spirit, appears to be contrary unto the Holy
Word of God in general, and in particular unto
the eighth Chapter of the Romans, which saith of
Believers, That they are in the Spirit, the Spirit dwells
in them: If they have not the Spirit they are none of
his: The Spirit is Life: By the Spirit they shall be
raised: By the Spirit they mortify Sin: Led by the
{39}
Spirit: Received the Spirit; and the Spirit bearing
Witness with their Spirits. Now, if all these Things
can be so, and a great many more, without any Inspiration
or Impulses of the Holy Spirit, it is wonderful
to me, as our Author must alledge, or write
wilfully and knowingly against the express Word of
God. But to conclude, I am persuaded that it has
given a deeper Wound and a greater Blow to experimental
Piety than any one Piece, yea, than all the
Writings which have been published in these Parts
in Opposition of the same. The Whole of this
Letter, if the Author be gracious, looks like a Person
under deep Desertion, strong Temptations, and
great Delusions, and discovers what Man is when
left to himself. Oh! that the Author may come to
a true Sight of his Sin, and of the Wrong done to
the Church of Christ by this Letter, and make his
Acknowledgment as open and publick as the Letter
is, to the Glory of God, and the Good of his
Church.

I would now anſwer a few OBJECTIONS

againſt this.

Objection 1. These Things are opposite unto what
you have published in respect unto the Communion
of the Saints. Answer 1. Any unprejudiced Person
may easily perceive, that I have several other weighty
Reasons besides a not Owning the Covenants, which
was only spoken of it in that Piece; which constrain
me to recede, for the present, from the ecclesiastical
Judicatures of this Church. But in this I
was wrong, in not making a Distinction between
constant and occasional Communion; between a not
Owning and a Denying the Covenants; between a
not seeing thro’ them, and a wilful Carelessness about
them.[5] 2. According to my Opinion, there are unquestionable
Saints, not a few, of each Side of the
Question, that are for and against the covenanted
{40}
Reformation: Hence there is an unavoidable Necessity
of not joining in some respect with all that I
believe to be Saints; for I suppose, no less than Almighty
God can bring us all to be of one Mind in
these Things. And would any Person have me to
forsake those Saints that profess and maintain clearly
and openly the very same Principles that I profess
and maintain; to join those Saints that will not
discover their Principles, what they are, whether
good or bad, and do deny several Particulars which
I am obliged in Conscience to own and maintain?
This makes my Way clear. Indeed were there all
Saints on the one Hand, and none on the other, it
would alter the Case.

Objection 2. The holy God seems remarkably to
countenance and bless several of both Ministers and
People who are not strict Presbyterians, yea, perhaps
know little what a Presbyterian is; yea, Independents,
Anabaptists, and Churchmen: And why
should not we join with them, when God appears
with them? Answer. 1. If you join with those that
are Independents, Anabaptists, or Churchmen, you
cast a Stumbling-block in the Way of many of God's
Children, that cannot in Conscience join with you,
while you join with those that are of another Persuasion,
or in their own Lax. Christ tells us, Wo
to the Man that offend one of these little Ones that believe
in me. Now I believe none will dare to say
but that several strict Presbyterians or Covenanters,
as to what Man can see of them, live as near God
as any upon Earth. But you will say, let them be
as good as they will, they are wrong in this, and
they should be instructed so: I grant a Possibility of
even gracious Men, sound in the Faith, over-straining
in some Points; but then who mars your instructing
of them if they are wrong. You will say
that you cannot convince them that it is so, altho’
{41}
you have perhaps out-reasoned them, and therefore
you will forsake them, they are too stiff. But beware,
Dear Friends, that you don't offend one of
these little ones, by your turning away. You will
say, Why, what shall I do? Consider what it is
they are stiff about? Is it about the Principles of
the Presbyterian [Re]formed Religion? or is it some erroneous
Principle? If it be about an erroneous
Principle, after the first or second Admonition we
are to reject, Titus 3.10. If they are earnest in contending
for sound Principles, why, they contend
for nothing but what you profess to believe; and if
so, why should you turn away? We are commanded
to contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered
to the Saints, Jude 3. And several Presbyterians
believe that the Principles, which they profess, is
this Faith; and if any Person pretends to be a Presbyterian,
and does not believe that their Principles
are that Faith, or it contained in them, they sin
against the Light of their own Conscience. Again,
you will turn away from strict Presbyterians, i.e.
such as profess and maintain the Whole of the covenanted
Reformation: Why will you turn away?
They are too narrow, stiff, biggoted and censorious.
This you imagine, but perhaps it's hard to prove.
Well, you will turn with Independents, Anabaptists,
Churchmen, and the like; why do you so?
Why, we find good Men among them, and the
Lord appears with them. Well, and don't you find
good Men among Presbyterians, and that the Lord
has as signally countenanced and blest them, as ever
you heard of any Profession since the Days of the
Apostles until now, and now also? I suppose none
will deny this. If they do, it can easily be proved
to be so. You will say, that you dislike something
in the Presbyterians Practice. Well, do you find
nothing that you dislike among the Independents,
{42}
Anabaptists or Churchmen? If so, why do you call
yourself a Presbyterian? None compel thee to
this. But perhaps you will own, that you dislike
the Way and Manner of the above-named Governing
the Church, in them all, and many Things that
they maintain besides, because contrary to the Word
of God: Yet you cannot find any thing like this
with sound Presbyterians; yet you will leave them;
leave the latter, and cleave to the former. What
Shadow of Reason can be given for this? When
the one is sound in the Faith, the others corrupt in
Principles, and as liable to Failings in Practice as
those that are sound? Is not this contrary to the
Command of God to Jeremiah, Let them return
unto thee, but return not thou unto them. Jer. 15.19.
Answer 2. You will find, since God has remarkably
appeared with his Word, that frequently those who
were more loose than many others, have been bro't
home to God: And would not you look upon it as
a dreadful Conclusion, from this to conclude, that
Looseness of Life and Debauchery to be preferable
to a sober Life? Is not this to do Evil that Good
may come of it? Rom. 3.8. which is awful! And
is not this like the Case in Hand, viz. A Leaving
those that are sound in the Faith, to join with those
that at best are lax therein. 3. I suppose it is the
Word of God which should be the Rule of our Direction,
how to walk, and what to profess and practice,
and not God's Ways of Dealing with People,
whether in giving Grace or with-holding of it.
Isaiah 8.20, To the Law and to the Testimony: If they
speak not according to this Word, it is because there is
no Light in them. Whatsoever Principles or Practice
are contrary to this infallible Rule, are to be
rejected, yea, tho’ it were in a Peter. 2 Thess. 3.6.
Now we command you, Brethren, in the Name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from
{43}
every Brother that walketh disorderly, and not after
the Tradition which he received of us. It is not every
Heathen, but every Brother.

Objection 3. "We shall never be asked what Principles
we are of, if we are in Christ; and so it's
no Matter what Profession we are of: A Profession,
or sound Principles, will not save us: If
we are Believers in Christ, all will be well; and
without it, nothing will be so."

Answer 1. I would ask of you two Questions: 1.
Is not Soundness in the Faith a Command of God?
Sure it is; and dare thou slight it? 2. Is not an
Error in Principle, a Breach of the divine Law, as
well as an Error in Practice? Then surely Principles
should be regarded as well as Practice, yea, in
some Cases more; for Principles have great Influence
upon Practice. 3. Principles will not save you, it's
true, neither your Works do it. Will not thou
there[fore] do what thou canst? Remember, O vain Man,
that Faith without Works is dead. So you will
find your pretended Believing, without endeavouring
after Soundness in Principles, to be only a bold
Presumption.

Objection 4. Many good Men have been Independents,
Anabaptists and Churchmen; and why may
not I join with them?

Answer 1. There is no just Ground to doubt but it
is so; but what then? is there not also many good
Men who have been guilty of many terrible Sins?
such as David, Peter, and many others: And wilt
thou do so too? All of them are still guilty of sinning;
and wilt thou allow thyself to do so too?
There is a vast Difference between Sins of Ignorance
and wilful Sins; between Sins of Infirmities,
and between Sins that by Temptations prevail, and
Sins deliberately committed. 2. There is a great
Difference between a Person born and brought up
{44}
among Independents, Anabaptists and Churchmen,
that perhaps scarcely ever had the Opportunity of
perusing, or being instructed in almost any other
Principles than his own, and a Person who has
been born, brought up, and instructed in the Principles
of the Presbyterian Persuasion, falling in
with those other Principles; who may justly be termed
a Backslider: And there is no Part of the
Lord's Armour provided for the Back, [See Eph. 6.11-17]; which discovers
the doleful Danger of Backsliding.

Objection 5. Strict Adhering unto any one Set of
Principles, occasions Divisions in the Church of
God, and sometimes among the Children of God.

Answer 1. I confess it is so, and indeed it is very
awful when it occasions Divisions among the Children
of God. But the Reason why it is so, is, because
corrupt Nature wants to come and go; it
cannot bear a being bound to any thing that is good.
Yet this is no new Thing, for it was so with Peter
and Paul, with Paul and Silas, with Luther and
Calvin, and many others. 2. In doing of Duty
we are not to be guided by the Effects that the Doing
of it may have, but by the Command of God,
let the Effects be what they will; the Duty is ours,
but Events belong unto God, who can and will
over-rule all Things to his own Glory and Good to
his Church.

CONCLUSION.

Reverend Fathers and Dear Brethren in CHRIST JESUS,

I PUT no Question but these Things may be
surprizing unto you, on the Account of the Divisions
that is probable will ensue this receding of
mine from your Meetings: Yet I suppose it will
scarcely be more so to any one of you than it has
been to me: I have been for some Weeks, yea,
Months, that I could not tell what to do or how to
{45}
turn myself; my Conscience raged when I had
Thoughts of being silent a little longer, and on the
other hand, I did not know how to part with your
Society. This has been my Difficulty, when none
on Earth knew of it: Let these Things appear in
others Eyes as they will, they are very weighty to
me. God has evidently got Glory to his own
Name out of the first Division which fell out among
us, and much Good to his Church, by delivering
many of his Children from carnal and blind Guides,
and discovered to many what a sad Plague these
have been to the World: And now I hope God is
about to discover unto many the mournful State of
Zion, how open it lies unto all Kinds of Birds of
Prey. Altho’ I have not lik'd the State of our Church
these many Years past, yet I must confess, that I
never imagin'd that it lay in such a desperate, ruinous
Heap as I find upon Search it does. It is my
real Opinion, that never any People, since God
created Man upon the Earth, that injoy'd such Light
as we do, were ever so infatuated, bewildered, and, if
I may use the Terms, so bewitched about the Affairs
of any Branch of his Church, as we in this Age and
in these Parts, who have made ourselves fond under
the Notion of our having embraced the Westminster
Confession of Faith as our own, when indeed it is
not so; for all the Pretences this Way have been
only a Piece of mere Jugglry or an Heap of Confusion,
and instead of these I know not any one Set
of Principles that we have that ever was professed
by any People; nay, I suppose that there is not one
on Earth that can tell what our Principles generally
are. Oh! Tears of Blood are too little to lament
the distressed Case of our Zion. I have, in some
Measure, opened up to you my Mind, dear Brethren,
and I suppose upon a Review of what has been said
you will conclude that I have sufficient Ground at
{46}
the present, until these Lets be removed from your
Meetings, to withdraw; and altho’ we should never
be united in one while in time, let us endeavour
each of us so to strive to glorify GOD on Earth
that when we have finished our Course here below
we may come to enjoy a happy Eternity together
in the Kingdom of Glory above, where our Discord
will all be at an end, and we united in one,
each one endeavouring to sing Hosannas, Love-Songs
and Songs of Praise upon the highest Key. Farewell.

TERMS propoſed by Mr. Alexander
Creaghead for Re-union with the Preſ-
bytery of New-Caſtle, to ſit at White-
clay-Creek, the Second Wedneſday of
September, Anno 1742.

Reverend Fathers and Dear Brethren,

THAT it may conspicuously appear unto you
and all other People as it truly and really is,
that I have no Desire, Design or Intention to recede
from your Meetings, Appointments or Communion,
if I could, with a good Conscience, enjoy the same:
I think I can boldly say, as in the Sight of the
Heart searching God, that I do not want to promote
Divisions nor mine own Character in this
Affair; but singlely and only the Cause of God,
which has been sealed by the Blood of many Martyrs:
And in Testimony of the Truth of what is said I
shall lay down the following Particulars, which, if
complied with, will fully satisfy my Conscience, and
I shall be ready to join with you in all Ministerial
and Christian Communion.

First. If you are sincerely and heartily willing to
receive and embrace every individual Particular contained
in the 33 Articles, together with the Catechisms,
{47}
larger and shorter (according unto the plain
Meaning and Intent of them) composed by the Assembly
of Divines at Westminster as the Confession
of your Faith.

Secondly. If you are sincerely and heartily willing
to take the Directory in Worship and Government,
which you will make your Guide therein, and if
you do approve of the Sum of saving Knowledge as
a short altho’ a full and comprehensive Description
thereof.

Thirdly. If you are sincerely and heartily willing
to own and acknowledge the national and solemn
League and Covenants as a Tie binding you together
with all other Presbyterians materially and formally
considered unto the Whole of the Presbyterian Religion;
and to oppose all Error, these Covenants being
renewed by the aforesaid Assembly in the same
Year which the Confession was received in as a Part
of the Uniformity in Religion.

Fourthly. If you are sincerely and heartily willing
to give a Presbyterial Testimony; First against
that dreadful Apostacy in King Charles the Second's
Time, and all the Defections from the Presbyterian
Religion, and in particular against the Complying
with that Time, by taking those sinful Bonds, Oaths
and Indulgences first or last. 2dly, Against Prelacy
in its self as it is an Invention of Men contrary
unto God's Holy Word. Against the Exercise of
Prelacy by one Teacher ruling over another Teacher;
yea, and over others; against the Exercise of it
over the Church of Christ, which he has redeemed;
and over the Consciences of Men, which none but
GOD is Lord over: Against these as they are an
Encroachment upon and an Usurpation of the Royal
Prerogatives of the Son of God. 3dly. Against
all synodical and presbyterial Acts which have been
enacted by pretended Presbyterians, against or inconsistent
{48}
with either the Whole Confession of Faith or
any Part of it contained within that excellent Book;
against all kind of Practice contrary to the same;
against all diminitive Discourse of this Book, and
of Persons in as far as they endeavour the Propagation
of the Truths therein contained. All those
Things [the four Terms] I look upon as undoubtedly agreeable unto
the Holy Word of God, and to the Christian reformed
Religion; and without a Complying with
which I cannot understand how we can maintain,
propagate and vindicate every Particular in the 33
Articles, and in the Catechisms, larger and shorter,
composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster;
some Part of which Articles and Catechisms binds
us to almost every if not all the Particulars mentioned
under the last Head, besides our additional Obligation
unto them all by the Directory and Covenants,
national and solemn League.

Please to insert this, together with my Reasons,
in your Minutes of the Presbytery.

♦♦~♥♥~♦♦

~♥♥~

♥

Footnotes:

1. To this expression, Samuel Blair replies in his Animadversions on Mr. Creaghead's Reasons as follows:

That the Magistrate has Power to punish
Persons, if they will spread and teach
their Heresies to the perverting of the
Gospel, and poisoning the Church I do
not deny, but that he may punish Persons,
merely for entertaining erroneous
Principles, is a groundless unreasonable
Notion.

But it seems
evident that Mr. Craighead intended more by "entertaining erroneous
Principles" than what Mr. Blair understood, for he grounds the magistrate's
role in this respect upon his being a Nursing Father
to the Church; which is not fulfilled by punishing
individuals for the private errors of their minds, but
restraining the enemies of the Church from sowing
tares in the field and leavening the lump.
Mr. Craighead himself offers this response:

Here is a wonderful criticizing upon a Word
which it will in nowise bear;
for a Person cannot be known to Men,
that he is erroneous, unless he discover
it either by Word, Profession, or Practice:
And it is manifest, both by the Words cited
in the 8th Page of the Preface, and from the Act
itself in the 7th Page, that it is the
professing of Errors that is intended by what
is said. But this is much like the false Gloss
that the Author puts upon many Things.

2. Here it seems that both our author and the Presbytery have erred on opposite sides of this question, the Presbytery in a practical way, and our author in expression of principle. The Apostle Paul speaks plainly on this matter,
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.—2 Thess. 3.14,15. Yet, though Mr. Craighead here expresses himself as if he had forgotten that the Apostle would have us to regard such individuals who err from our common faith as brothers, yet his concern and conclusion expressed here are obviously identical
to that of the Apostle: for he directs us to expect a comfortable deliverance to sinners who have erred, only when a careful attendance to faithful Church discipline is accompanied with the blessing of God upon his own appointed ordinances; which things he laments had been neglected in his day, to the ruining of the Church,—as also they are in ours.—JTKer.

3. It is to be noted
that not all of the documents commonly published and bound together as the "Westminster Confession of Faith" were "approved and received" by the Westminster Assembly; neither was the said Assembly
gathered for the purpose of approving and receiving, but "to consult and advise" without the exercise of "any jurisdiction, power, or authority ecclesiastical whatsoever," as may be seen in the Ordinance
of the Lords and Commons for calling the Assembly, dated 1643.06.12. Some authors speak loosely of the documents drafted and the deeds adopting the documents as if both were the work of the same assembly;
and such usage of language had tended to promote a degree of confusion which still abides at the present day. Yet, one cannot doubt that those documents drafted by the Westminster Assembly, had their approval,
and, in the case of the Confession of Faith, this fact is expressed in the Act of Assembly of the Church of Scotland, approving the Confession of Faith as part of our Covenanted Uniformity. Neither should anyone
question whether the Westminster Assembly may be said to have approven the National Covenant of Scotland, seeing as this is plainly inferred from the Solemn League and Covenant. It may be useful to some readers,
to consult an article on "The Westminster Assembly" published in the Original Covenanter magazine written to explain the difference
of roles and authority between the Westminster Assembly and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, during the time of the Second Reformation.

As for the Covenants being "frequently renewed," the reader may desire to know how frequently this was.
Besides the various renewals of the National Covenant of Scotland prior to and at the beginning
of the Second Reformation, these may be mentioned: At the end of 1648 the Solemn League and Covenant was renewed throughout Scotland
by Commandment of the General Assembly of the Church and of Parliament; in 1666 the Covenants were renewed at Lanerk by some adhering to the
Cause of Reformation in the early years of persecution; in 1689 the Covenants were again renewed by the United Societies, who then
represented the True Church of Scotland, according to her Reformation Constitution; and again in 1712 the United Societies renewed our
Reformation Covenants, with the assistance of Mr. John McMillan and Mr. John McNeil. These are what may be looked
upon as the most significant Renovations of the Covenants since that time. Mr. Craighead himself, in the same year in which the above
document was published, also renewed the Covenants at Middle Octorara, Pennsylvania. Likewise there were various Renovations
of the Covenants by others in the Church of Scotland, and among the Seceders in Scotland, as well as in the Reformed Presbyterian
Churches of Scotland, Ireland, and America of lesser note, as lacking either the doctrinal and practical faithfulness of those above, or
in some cases lacking the very nature of a Covenant Renovation. Some of these, however,
as well as the Renovation of the Covenants by the Reformed Presbytery in North America, 1880,
occurred after the publication of the above document.—JTKer.

4. To this sentence, Samuel Blair replies in his Animadversions on Mr. Creaghead's Reasons as follows:

Mr. C. appears to be but an indifferent
Historian as well as Logician; when
he tells us, pag 32. That the generallity,
both of Ministers and People in Charles
IId's Reign, took the Oaths of Supremacy,
Abjuration, and all the sinful Oaths
then impos'd on Presbyterians: For the
Thing it self is false in Fact.

Yet if he deals more honestly than Mr.
Craighead is much to be questioned; for though it were "False in Fact" yet it is evident that Mr. Craighead's
intention is to demonstrate the National Apostacy of Scotland,
which is undeniable in respect of the Nation's compliance with these oaths. If
the statement were "False in Fact" yet the only correction needed would be to
affirm that, "The Generality upon whom they were imposed or to whom they were proposed
took the Oaths of Supremacy, &c."; which being true, will make
for Mr. Craighead all that he needs to maintain his point. Yet, we may let Mr.
Craighead speak for himself:

The Author saith, It is false in Fact,
that the Generality of Ministers and People took these
Oaths that were imposed in King Charles 2d's Time.
This indeed looks something arrogant like, for a
Person to assert a Falsehood on another,
without any Ground or Shadow of Proof:
’Tis admirable what all this proceeds from!
But ’tis too plain, that neither good Manners,
good Parts, or Truth is regarded; to wit,
That what the Author [Mr. Blair] asserted was false,
appears from Mr. Wodrow's History,
which he hath had the Opportunity of,
Vol. 1, pag. 22,23, concerning the Oath of Allegiance;
pag. 26, of an Instrument assertory of the King's Prerogative;
page 278, of the Bond of Peace, this generally signed;
pag. 287 and 308, of the Indulgence:
Appendix, pag. 124 of the Oath of Supremacy;
pag 173,174, of a Bond concerning Wives, Children, and Servants, and Cottars:
Vol. 2, pag. 193,194, of another Oath;
pag. 436 of the Oath of Abjuration, and another Command for taking it, pag. 176 and 495.
Persons were condemned to die for refusing the
Oath of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration.
Hence you may perceive, that not only the
Generality of Persons, and in all Ranks took
these Oaths, Instruments, Tests, Bonds,
but almost the Universality of Persons,
except such as opposed them,
all which were but few in Number in respect of
Compliers.

5. These comments refer back to Mr. Craighead's Discourse Concerning the Covenants, &c.
Evidently our author's thoughts were not yet well defined on this point. What he affirms here is still not entirely
clear. It is possible that his distinction between constant and occasional communion is intended to recognize
that there may be some with whom we cannot join in ecclesiastical fellowship, with whom it may be proper
to join in private fellowship in prayer and social duties. This point is made also in the Reformed Presbytery
of Scotland's Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion; but it is to be carefully noted also
that the same Presbytery in their Short Directory for Religious Societies warn the brethren that,
"If you would succeed in your suits to the Hearer of Prayer, employ none to go to God on your behalf, but the friends of God. The nearest and most obvious mark of such is, that they are protected by the friends of God's cause and kingdom. Among these you must seek such as God will accept. They must outwardly in profession be the friends of God's cause and inwardly the friends of God's Christ. The way here prescribed is to glorify God in the day of visitation, the other to dishonour him." Which subject is further explained in a footnote.—JTKer.